[flagged]
Even under fiction I have seen claimed that these are all surplus old arms, the US left them in Afghanistan last time precisely because logistics alone is expensive.
This is what I'm proposing. Eliminate aid, that filters back into Americans not being forced to pay for it. Those who want to can use their savings to donate or fly over and fight.
If we go down your path, you’ll find people who don’t want to fund your government services. If they get their way you’ll be salty.
If you REALLY want to go there, then my blue state taxes should not go to red states.
For reference, I have no police service, no fire service, no public roads where I live. Road access for miles and miles are private easements which works without taxes -- I first built my road with an axe and a shovel with no government assistance. I have privately drilled water, a privately made sewer, and private electric for which I personally funded the power poles. I pay for private education for my children, on top of taxes for public school. Any remaining scraps of public services you might claim I get, I assure you it would be cheaper for me to buy privately than pay ~30% of my income as I do now in tax.
I don't want your tax money or services. You have a deal.
And the idea that your wife and children could be raped and murdered (along with yourself of course) by an invading horde is so far from your mind that you don't even register it as something you're paying for, but if we all weren't paying for other people to protect your liberty, you might be just as unfortunate as the Ukrainians right now, who are facing that very threat.
You think you can fund an army yourself with 30% of your income? Really?
I share my private well with several people who cannot afford a well on their own -- i cant afford it on my own withot them. It's all done privately without government. Thus can happen with militias, with healthcare, other infrastructure, the whole shebang. There is no need for private defense to be entirely funded by one person, for instance as I mentioned previously in the militia I fought in against isis everyone beside me there was on their own dime for a collective defense.
Militias don't protect against invading armies. If you want to protect against an army, you need to fund an army.
What's more likely if aid stops to ukraine is that US taxpayers stop paying and life goes on. My opinion on other taxes notwithstanding, this rabbit hole of cell phones and modern society falling apart and my wife being raped (seriously wtf) because I didn't spend jonnies Christmas money on Ukraine is unraveling. This is why Trump won, and the aid will end. We're done being blackmailed with apocolyptic threats, and the false dichotomies.
It kind of doesn't matter how you feel about it though.
The way we resolve our difference of opinion is our system of representatives. You elect representatives to champion your cause, I elect representatives to champion mine, and then they figure out a compromise memorialized as a bill.
So when you say "well I don't want to spend money on this"... so what?? Your opinion was counted. The decision was that money would be sent but not as much as we would like -- a compromise. This is what enables us to live in harmony.
If you want to throw out the compromise, you're also going to throw out the harmony.
> my wife being raped (seriously wtf)
See? You think this possibility so remote, you just scoff at it. If you had asked Ukrainians in 2021 if it was a possibility it would be happening to them today, some would say yes, but most people felt it was not a possibility. Then it happened.
Your position is just as precarious as theirs was before the war, because you are dependent on distant people to protect your liberty. That's what you pay taxes for.
If you feel you're getting a raw deal, then you and your militia can renounce your citizenship, declare your independence and fend for yourself. Forego access to our banking system, our defense, our welfare, our hospitals, our communication infrastructure, our factories, our ports, our air infrastructure. Make your own nation, defend your own land against stronger neighbors (the USA in this case), and actually be independent.
You won't do it though because deep down you know you depend on the rest of us, you're just salty you're asked to contribute anything at all.
Somewhere in your calculation you are wrong. And it's not my 'feeling' that got us here, your feeling we ought to fund Ukraine is contradicting reality right now. Either US institutions don't function as you think or they are working as you intended with a different mandate than you like. Either way your monologue about renouncing and fighting the USA serves only as your own personal entertainment to distract from that.
It was through Trump's unilateral decision, which is illegal. The money was appropriated by our representatives from our tax dollars, and we want it to go. The President doesn't have the right under the Constitution and the law to halt it.
> Either US institutions don't function as you think
US institutions do function like I think, because I learned how they function, it's pretty straight forward: Congress has the power to how spend money, and the President spends it. That he chooses not to is an abuse of power, and violates the law [1], the Constitution [2], and his oath of office [3].
Congress voted for that money to be spent, and the former President signed it into law. Not spending it unlawfully usurps Congress' Article I "power of the purse", and violates the Article II "take care" clause.
I think it's pretty clear, can you cite where the law and Constitution supports your argument?
[1] https://www.gao.gov/products/095406
[2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/
[3] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
This is a shortcutted, half correct view.
Impoundment Is generally illegal and/or unconstitutional.
However,
IF a Congressional directive to spend were to interfere with the President’s authority in an area confided by the Constitution to his substantive direction and control, such as his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and his authority over foreign affairs . . . a situation would be presented very different from [a domestic impoundment]. [0]
If the president may impound appropriations that invade his recognition power, it follows that he may likewise do so when Congress infringes on other exclusive powers, such as that of chief diplomat. ... Similarly, the impoundment power may extend to the president’s core and exclusive powers as commander-in-chief.
[0] 116 CONG. REC. 343–45 (1970)
[1] Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry
[2] https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol70/iss3/3/
[3] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/
The author argues for impoundment pertaining to exclusive powers, which are very few and limited in the Constitution. I actually agree with the argument laid out in the piece, but I don't think it supports the idea that Trump is within his legal right to impound Ukraine aid.
The core argument is that Congress can't legislate the President's exclusive powers away, and I agree with that. The author then applies a "gloss" test which is used by legal scholars to help interpret the Constitution by taking into account a variety of historical and contemporary contexts.
They apply this test to the idea that POTUS is within his right to impound funds that intersect with this exclusive power as CIC. And they show historically it has been the case that POTUS has impounded WPC funds - military weapons, personnel, and construction.
Key arguments here are that Jefferson did it in the past, and the President is better situated as the head of the executive branch to identify waste in the huge defense complex than Congress, so he should be able to say "Actually we have enough, thanks." despite Congress wanting to spend more.
So we can agree that POTUS has a narrow impoundment power within his exclusive executive authority. The operative word there is exclusive, because where this argument fails is that we're not talking about WPC funding, so Ukraine aid is out of scope for this argument.
However, they do provide this argument. Some choice quotes from the piece you linked:
Curtiss-Wright did not hold that the President is free from Congress’ lawmaking power in the field of international relations . . . . In a world that is ever more compressed and interdependent, it is essential [that] the congressional role in foreign affairs be understood and respected. For it is Congress that makes laws, and in countless ways its laws will and should shape the Nation’s course. The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue . . . . It is not for the President alone to determine the whole content of the Nation’s foreign policy.155
The dissenters, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Antonin Scalia, did not agree that the president’s recognition power was exclusive, arguing instead that it was a shared power with Congress.156 Like the majority, they also repudiated Curtiss-Wright. 157 Only Justice Clarence Thomas clung to a Curtiss Wright conception of presidential power in foreign policy.158 Therefore, eight Justices agreed that Congress has substantial legislative authority in the foreign policy sphere.
In the words of Justice Kennedy, “[W]hether the realm is foreign or domestic, it is still the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch, that makes the law.”
The article, and my prior citations explain how this can expand to military funding. If POTUS cannot impound military funding and instead must distribute funding to armies for proxy wars, he is effectively bypassed as commander in chief. That you've simply declared the history, opinions, constitution don't allow impoundment of money for military weapons and personnel etc doesn't make it true. indeed,this impoundment is happening before our eyes through the machinations of the system. This is democracy in action.
Taxes fund civilization and the world we've built. The IRS collects a percentage of our money to build roads and infrastructure, defend our nation's interests, provide income in retirement, provide health care, and so much more good stuff.
Part of that is ensuring that the world is stable so that our nation doesn't have to go to war. We do that with alliances, investment in military force, investment in diplomacy, and investment in building economic opportunity globally so people don't turn to violence.
It doesn't always work; no system is perfect.
But Ukraine is the perfect example of a democratic nation that has been invaded by a dictatorship and needs our support. They have already destroyed most of the Russian army and economy with our support, and we need to finish the job.
If we don't give them the resources to finish the job, it is just a matter of when the next dictator does similar, and we are forced to send our people to fight. Do you want to go fight in Tawain? Do you want to find in Estonia?
History has shown us that isolationism doesn't work, nor does giving into naked aggression from dictators and autocrats.
However it is really disingenuous to try frame a global conflict between super powers in terms of personal responsibility. Your prescription is in the same vein as saying those worried about climate change should recycle more, when it is clear their utmost efforts would not make a dent in the global scheme of things. As such, no amount of motivated militia is going to make a dent in a war against an industrialized military.
Just come out and say I don't want to pay for to support Ukraine's war against Russia. Your opinion is valid and should be taken into account. However you don't get to dodge your responsibilities if the outcome doesn't go your way, just like a Democrat has to live with Trump's policies whether they like it or not. It's pathetic to try garnering sympathy with cage analogies.
This should be first, front, and center concern before that gun is pointed at Americans trying to get by.
>However it is really disingenuous to try frame a global conflict between super powers in terms of personal responsibility
Awesome, then I have no personal responsibility to fund it. We're all happy then.